What's new

August/September 2013 Fleet Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Who is the NBM?

First of all the NMB wasnt involved, it was a court decision.

Guess you didnt look hard enough John John. You make this too easy.


Judge blocks strike at Northwest
Judge grants request of nation's No. 5 airline to keep flight attendants from striking just hours before it was due to start.


http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/25/news/companies/northwest_strike_blocked/
 
Freedom.....can you get the word out that in the British Airways Conference in the International Wing for USAirways at PHX Sky Harbor Airport that members of the Negotiating Committee will be there today and tomorrow, 6/20-6/21, to answer and clarify contract questions that have come up and why we are where we are.

Thanks
 
And that ruling needs to be challenged by all unions involved with the NBM
http://usatoday30.us...wa-strike_x.htm

http://web.archive.o...MEETINGjump.asp
CWA’ers told management the magnitude of the cuts being demanded of passenger service employees is phenomenal –
http://web.archive.o...-04proposal.pdf
This is the demand that CWA fought off
700..... Just say it...... "I was to chicken #### to do anything so I took a knee"
You and the leadership basically said that to the membership. "Hey guys, game, set, match! They outsmarted us in every way so take it up the a$$ because we are not allowed to do anything else!"
It's hard to respect someone who rolls over without a fight.
 
Do you all not understand what happened?

It is apparent you dont understand bankruptcy and Section 1113 C of the code which outlines the procedures for collective bargaining agreements in chapter 11.

Go back and see what Lorenzo did to CO, that is why Congress enacted the section, but it still favors the creditors and company, not the employees.

The IAM Mechanic and Related NEVER reached an agreement in the second bankruptcy, we couldnt agree to laying off 46% of the Mechanic and Related members.

The CBA was abrogated and the Judge forced the IAM and membership to vote on a final offer, the membership ratified it. All the changes in language was given to every member to read and make their decision.

We gave the company a full and comprehensive CBA that met the ask without the termination of the pension and the company flat out rejected it as they said it kept too many people employed and they didnt want to manage people.

Those are the facts.
 
First of all the NMB wasnt involved, it was a court decision.

So the rules of the NBM would not be involved


Look at the time line
The CWA agents put their job on the line to get what they have.
Again the ruling needs to be challenged. Senior management got nervous because of the strike vote they were trying to line up investors to exit bankruptcy
 
Who is the NBM?

No such government agency, that would be the National Mediation Board (NMB).

I was there, the company wasnt nervous at all.

The CWA rearranged the deck chairs, every union was given a target number by the company, and the company put wiggle room in that number, no one gave the full ask.

No one put their job on the line at the CWA, except for the 830 members that the CWA gave up to layoffs. You didnt strike, you didnt work by the book, you sacrificed Greentree Reservations and Central Baggage Services to get credit to that ask and let San Salvador and Manilla do the work, and dont answer all the work came back, yes the work did but 430 of the 800 jobs didnt.

And glad to see you ignored the Judge shutting down the NW Flight Attendants attempt to strike, when you were shown to be wrong.
 
Do you all not understand what happened?

It is apparent you dont understand bankruptcy and Section 1113 C of the code which outlines the procedures for collective bargaining agreements in chapter 11.

Go back and see what Lorenzo did to CO, that is why Congress enacted the section, but it still favors the creditors and company, not the employees.

The IAM Mechanic and Related NEVER reached an agreement in the second bankruptcy, we couldnt agree to laying off 46% of the Mechanic and Related members.

The CBA was abrogated and the Judge forced the IAM and membership to vote on a final offer, the membership ratified it. All the changes in language was given to every member to read and make their decision.

We gave the company a full and comprehensive CBA that met the ask without the termination of the pension and the company flat out rejected it as they said it kept too many people employed and they didnt want to manage people.

Those are the facts.
You said it "abrogated"
The Contract ended by authority!
Under the NMB, contracts never end and are amendable. That's why striking is so difficult.
I don't think we ever heard of an abrogated contract prior to then. Jerry Glass used US Airways as a test case for all the other airlines to follow suit and it worked... game, set, match. And our leadership , as yourself, had no idea what to do except roll over.
Why did we not test the legal system by calling for a strike. What do the NMB rules say about abrogated contracts? Why can't we make our interpretations of the rules and gain an edge?
"We can't do that!!!"............. That statement usually comes from the people in the back cowering
 
The results speak for itself


So the “No such government agency, that would be the National Mediation Board (NMB).” Would not be involved
 
The NMB doesnt make laws nor enforce them.

It is quite apparent you have no idea of how the Railway Labor Act, The National Mediation Board, or the Bankruptcy Laws work.

Section 1113 C of the bankruptcy code outlines a process on how to terminate collective bargaining agreements.

So explain to me how the NMB has jurisdiction when they dont.

The Railway Labor Act outlines Collective Bargaining Agreements in the Airline and Railroads.

The NMB has no jurisdiction under Bankruptcy laws including Section 1113 C.

You have no clue what you are talking about. If Judge Mitchell abrogated out CBA, then why didnt the NMB stop him?

Oh by the way, they cant, but I want to read your explanation, since you know more than the courts and our bankruptcy attorneys, please explain it.

Guess you dont know what happened when Frank Lorenzo took Continental into chapter 11 and there was no section 1113, they judge with a strike of his gavel, wiped out all collective bargaining agreements and union certification at Continental, that is why Congress changed the laws.

There have been plenty of contracts abrogated, just because you never heard about it, doesnt mean it didnt happen.

Section 1113 C
(a) The debtor in possession, or the trustee if one has been appointed under the provisions of this chapter, other than a trustee in a case covered by subchapter IV of this chapter and by title I of the Railway Labor Act, may assume or reject a collective bargaining agreement only in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(B)

(1) Subsequent to filing a petition and prior to filing an application seeking rejection of a collective bargaining agreement, the debtor in possession or trustee (hereinafter in this section “trustee” shall include a debtor in possession), shall—

(A) make a proposal to the authorized representative of the employees covered by such agreement, based on the most complete and reliable information available at the time of such proposal, which provides for those necessary modifications in the employees benefits and protections that are necessary to permit the reorganization of the debtor and assures that all creditors, the debtor and all of the affected parties are treated fairly and equitably; and

(B) provide, subject to subsection (d)(3), the representative of the employees with such relevant information as is necessary to evaluate the proposal.

(2) During the period beginning on the date of the making of a proposal provided for in paragraph (1) and ending on the date of the hearing provided for in subsection (d)(1), the trustee shall meet, at reasonable times, with the authorized representative to confer in good faith in attempting to reach mutually satisfactory modifications of such agreement.
(c) The court shall approve an application for rejection of a collective bargaining agreement only if the court finds that—
(1) the trustee has, prior to the hearing, made a proposal that fulfills the requirements of subsection (B)(1);
(2) the authorized representative of the employees has refused to accept such proposal without good cause; and
(3) the balance of the equities clearly favors rejection of such agreement.
(d)
(1) Upon the filing of an application for rejection the court shall schedule a hearing to be held not later than fourteen days after the date of the filing of such application. All interested parties may appear and be heard at such hearing. Adequate notice shall be provided to such parties at least ten days before the date of such hearing. The court may extend the time for the commencement of such hearing for a period not exceeding seven days where the circumstances of the case, and the interests of justice require such extension, or for additional periods of time to which the trustee and representative agree.

(2) The court shall rule on such application for rejection within thirty days after the date of the commencement of the hearing. In the interests of justice, the court may extend such time for ruling for such additional period as the trustee and the employees’ representative may agree to. If the court does not rule on such application within thirty days after the date of the commencement of the hearing, or within such additional time as the trustee and the employees’ representative may agree to, the trustee may terminate or alter any provisions of the collective bargaining agreement pending the ruling of the court on such application.

(3) The court may enter such protective orders, consistent with the need of the authorized representative of the employee to evaluate the trustee’s proposal and the application for rejection, as may be necessary to prevent disclosure of information provided to such representative where such disclosure could compromise the position of the debtor with respect to its competitors in the industry in which it is engaged.

(e) If during a period when the collective bargaining agreement continues in effect, and if essential to the continuation of the debtor’s business, or in order to avoid irreparable damage to the estate, the court, after notice and a hearing, may authorize the trustee to implement interim changes in the terms, conditions, wages, benefits, or work rules provided by a collective bargaining agreement. Any hearing under this paragraph shall be scheduled in accordance with the needs of the trustee. The implementation of such interim changes shall not render the application for rejection moot.

(f) No provision of this title shall be construed to permit a trustee to unilaterally terminate or alter any provisions of a collective bargaining agreement prior to compliance with the provisions of this section
.
 
I'm doing my part , but be prepared for a bit of a roasting .
 
Well, this thread has officially become useless for any sort of meaningful exchange of information.

Between the personal attacks and the IAM's biggest and loudest defender, every single goddamn topic turns into the same goddamn thing.

I may as well stick to airliners.net...this is ridiculous.
 
700..... Just say it...... "I was to chicken #### to do anything so I took a knee"
You and the leadership basically said that to the membership. "Hey guys, game, set, match! They outsmarted us in every way so take it up the a$$ because we are not allowed to do anything else!"
It's hard to respect someone who rolls over without a fight.
I was a Local Chairman at the time and the meetings were thoroughly embarrassing. The IAM had their tail between their legs the whole way. The Local Chair meeting was a brainwashing that basically told the Local Chairman, 3 things.
1. Your screwed
2. Your screwed
3. Your screwed.
No plan, no nothing. When I asked about the CWA and other groups, the IAM said that they didn't want to piss off management.

Then they put out a dopey letter saying, "Knife to our back and gun to our head". And the famous, "Live to fight another day."

The problem is that we have been hearing that ever since we voted them in. Even a NC member came on here [before he was scolded and corrected] saying that transition talks is where it is at! LMAO.

Oh no, here we go again.....say it isn't so!

regards,
 
http://www.thefreeli...ke.-a0125572458
Agents at USAirways voted in favor of allowing the union's president to call a strike if the airline voided the union's contract.
The agents put their job on the line to get what they have.
This move changed the tone of US Airways canceling the union's contract through the bankruptcy courts.
http://web.archive.o...http://cwa.net/
+1

I find it interesting how the CWA is doing every current job of each job function, at each station, under scope. And 700 is attacking the CWA. And I differ with Prez as well regarding why the CWA has done better.
Canale gave up profit sharing for nothing. Wasn't even in bankruptcy. Gave up Mainline express, and scope for nothing at all. Dumb Dumb Dumb.

Management went after ramp because the IAM just rolled right over the past 15 years. Why wouldn't it? It still will until the leadership finally says, "NO"!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe that time has arrived. Time will tell if our union leadership signs a fence agreement or an otherwise less than fair ta with full recommendation.

regards,
 
You said it "abrogated"
The Contract ended by authority!
Under the NMB, contracts never end and are amendable. That's why striking is so difficult.
I don't think we ever heard of an abrogated contract prior to then. Jerry Glass used US Airways as a test case for all the other airlines to follow suit and it worked... game, set, match. And our leadership , as yourself, had no idea what to do except roll over.
Why did we not test the legal system by calling for a strike. What do the NMB rules say about abrogated contracts? Why can't we make our interpretations of the rules and gain an edge?
"We can't do that!!!"............. That statement usually comes from the people in the back cowering
+1
 
The NMB doesnt make laws nor enforce them.

It is quite apparent you have no idea of how the Railway Labor Act, The National Mediation Board, or the Bankruptcy Laws work.

Section 1113 C of the bankruptcy code outlines a process on how to terminate collective bargaining agreements.

So explain to me how the NMB has jurisdiction when they dont.

The Railway Labor Act outlines Collective Bargaining Agreements in the Airline and Railroads.

The NMB has no jurisdiction under Bankruptcy laws including Section 1113 C.

You have no clue what you are talking about. If Judge Mitchell abrogated out CBA, then why didnt the NMB stop him?

Oh by the way, they cant, but I want to read your explanation, since you know more than the courts and our bankruptcy attorneys, please explain it.

Guess you dont know what happened when Frank Lorenzo took Continental into chapter 11 and there was no section 1113, they judge with a strike of his gavel, wiped out all collective bargaining agreements and union certification at Continental, that is why Congress changed the laws.

There have been plenty of contracts abrogated, just because you never heard about it, doesnt mean it didnt happen.

Section 1113 C

.

-1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top